Which cheeses w/red wine(s)?

originally posted by robert ames:
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
originally posted by robert ames:
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
originally posted by Karen Goetz:
...its structure sags gently near the outer perimeter against its crust of cinders...
Click to expand...
Selles-sur-Cher

Saint-Maure de Touraine (a log-shaped chevre)
Click to expand...
Usually has a straw down the center of it.

...And there are certainly chevres from this continent which are lovely and would make good partners with Loire cab francs.
Click to expand...
My lastest find is Lazy Lady "Bonaparte", an excellent New World valencay.

--
And, I know everyone knows but things are always better when explained: crottin de chavignol is a goat's milk cheese but if you buy something simply labeled "crottin" you are likely getting a sheep's milk cheese.
Click to expand...

and of course crottin means horse turd.
Click to expand...

Ish. Well, then ... perhaps a better pairing for southern Rhones.
Click to expand...

it is, i believe, due to similar size and shape, not due to poopiness.
Click to expand...

Yep. That was meant as a joke, albeit not an especially good one, I think we can agree. But then, cheese named for poop sets the bar low.
 
or is just an example of a french sense of humour. i've heard that they have one.

my brother once bought a cheese at the saturday market in epernay that had the nickname "dirty socks".

that was in a previous millennium (1997 to be exact), so don't remember what its christian name was, but it was in cold october, and when we unlocked the car the next morning the nickname was congruent with the aroma that filled the car.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by Peter Creasey:

Jonathan, way back when, CNdP was commonly used so I developed the habit. As you say, it is not in evidence much any more even though in my mind it is more descriptive. I used the CNdP representation because I didn't want to keep typing out the whole phrase over and over in this case.

. . . . . Pete
Click to expand...

CdP. It's even shorter. Whether CNdp is still used or not is irrelevant. It is an absurd abbreviation, especially with the capitalized N.
Click to expand...

Jonathan,
I saw the use of CNdP suggested many years ago on alt.food.wine to disambiguate it from the abbreviation for Côtes du Py (or, for that matter, Côtes de Provence).

Mark Lipton
 
If you look at winethreads, you will regularly see people use varietal when they mean variety. No one seems even to know what "beg the question means." Chateauneuf is one word and it doesn't mean Castle 9 (although I'm OK with the rebus justification, then we should have more rebus abbreviations).

I take the point about disambiguation (an atrocious lit. crit term of art). Maybe would should start calling Cote de Py CDPY.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
If you look at winethreads, you will regularly see people use varietal when they mean variety. No one seems even to know what "beg the question means." Chateauneuf is one word and it doesn't mean Castle 9 (although I'm OK with the rebus justification, then we should have more rebus abbreviations).

I take the point about disambiguation (an atrocious lit. crit term of art). Maybe would should start calling Cote de Py CDPY.
Click to expand...

Exception that proves the rule.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg: No one seems even to know what "beg the question means."
Click to expand...

I can never remember your rule(s) on this phrase; thus, I avoid using it, useful though it often is.

. . . . . . Pete
 
Common usage is something that invites an obvious question - you can hear this usage daily, weekly, in the news. E.g., 'the violence that erupted at last night's demonstration begs the question of why more police hadn't been placed on duty.'

Rhetorical usage is: in a debate, there is a question on the table. A weak argument pro or con is one that does not contest the question, but rather 'begs' it. A statement that begs the question, in this sense, is uncompelling or unpersuasive. E.g., 'more equitable social redistribution of wealth is wrong, because it would inhibit my friend's ability to upgrade his yacht.' So what?

'Correct' usage eventually gives way to 'common' usage, in my observation, and I'm not sure it serves any particular purpose to call people out for employing one or the other, except as a point of trivial interest, or in a context of specialized discussion (say, a conference of the Modern Language Association).

Another idiomatic phrase you hear all the time, especially these days, is "bully pulpit." Common usage indicates some public platform or position from which a person in a position of power can make statements that, because of their power, 'bullies' people into some course of action.

The phrase is derived from a statement by Theodore Roosevelt characterizing the office of the president of the united states. In TR's time time 'bully' served as a slang term for 'good,' 'cool,' or, say, 'gonzo;' he used it in this sense in other contexts and was occasionally criticized for his loose, slangy diction. His point was that the office of the presidency is a good one to preach from - from which to exhort or call out model moral examples. Rather divergent from the idea that it's a good platform for threat, coercion, or extortion.

History will have its little jokes.
 
Your definition of "rhetorical" usage is close but no cigar. The phrase is short for "beggars the question" and it entails offering an argument that already assumes an answer to the original question, thereby rendering the question valueless or beggaring it.What you call common usage, or to raise the question, is unmeaning in reference to the phrase. As I have said, I know I have lost this battle but when usage impoverishes language instead of enhancing it, it's worth complaining about. Am I next to accept doggy dog world for dog eat dog world, because that's how it sometimes gets reproduced?
 
My experience is that white wines are safer and almost never are a total disaster with cheese especially a cheese plate of a variety of cheeses. BUT I have had some serendipitous good experiences with red wine, my (somewhat unreliable) memory is that Pinot Noir is often a good partner. Following up some of the suggestions of goat cheese with Cab Franc (which is not an intuitive pairing to me), I sampled some small pieces of leftover cheese with a Baudry Chinon and the Vermont Creamery Bijou goat cheese was a superb pairing.
 
I didn’t intend to criticize you, Jonathan; just musing, as one does. This forum seems like a good place to comb through the niceties of language, idiom, and usage, though I don’t miss the ‘gotcha,’ school Marm-ish corrections that used to be a staple.

By all means, keep your standards high, but folk-etymology and misconstruction appear to be ways by which common language develops organically. In the end, a lot of people couldn’t give a rat’s crottin about the difference between variety and varietal, and for many of them, it’s not clear that much is gained by fussing over the difference.
 
As I have said, the difference is not between correctness and usage because usage just is what it is and will always win out. It's between changes that impoverish and those that enrich (in my infallible judgement, of course). The shift you mark in bully pulpit actually seems to me a good one since it creates a meaningful metaphor where before there was just slack slang. I prefer under weigh (the original formulation) to under way because the former's metaphor is not yet as dead as a door nail, but both formulations at least attach to some referential meaning. I don't even see why one would use "begs the question" instead of "raises the question," although I guess people think it means "begs for us to ask the question" or something like that.

I am with Jayson in not even being able to guess what people who write doggy dog world have in mind. But I assure him, the formulation is a common student error and just ready to become usage.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
As I have said, the difference is not between correctness and usage because usage just is what it is and will always win out. It's between changes that impoverish and those that enrich (in my infallible judgement, of course). The shift you mark in bully pulpit actually seems to me a good one since it creates a meaningful metaphor where before there was just slack slang. I prefer under weigh (the original formulation) to under way because the former's metaphor is not yet as dead as a door nail, but both formulations at least attach to some referential meaning. I don't even see one would use "begs the question" instead of "raises the queestion," although I guess people think it means "begs for us to ask the question" or something like that.

I am with Jayson in not even being able to guess what people who write doggy dog world have in mind. But I assure him, the formulation is a common student error and just ready to become usage
Click to expand...

I suspect I’ve heard “doggy dog world” but my brain translates it automatically into the phrase that makes sense. Now I’ll start hearing it.

The same used to occur when people would say “for all intensive purposes” until I started noticing “for all intents and purposes” misspoken this way by most people. Again, an example where the change doesn’t really make sense.

I can see “begs the question”, which does take the meaning you prescribe in most people’s minds now through constant usage, so I think it may be time to give up.
 
originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
As I have said, the difference is not between correctness and usage because usage just is what it is and will always win out. It's between changes that impoverish and those that enrich (in my infallible judgement, of course). The shift you mark in bully pulpit actually seems to me a good one since it creates a meaningful metaphor where before there was just slack slang. I prefer under weigh (the original formulation) to under way because the former's metaphor is not yet as dead as a door nail, but both formulations at least attach to some referential meaning. I don't even see one would use "begs the question" instead of "raises the queestion," although I guess people think it means "begs for us to ask the question" or something like that.

I am with Jayson in not even being able to guess what people who write doggy dog world have in mind. But I assure him, the formulation is a common student error and just ready to become usage
Click to expand...

I suspect I’ve heard “doggy dog world” but my brain translates it automatically into the phrase that makes sense. Now I’ll start hearing it.

The same used to occur when people would say “for all intensive purposes” until I started noticing “for all intents and purposes” misspoken this way by most people. Again, an example where the change doesn’t really make sense.

I can see “begs the question”, which does take the meaning you prescribe in most people’s minds now through constant usage, so I think it may be time to give up.
Click to expand...

I'm knee deep in the big muddy. It goes without saying that I'm gonna push on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top